"The Governator" a reality [Archive]

allan

10-08-2003, 11:59 AM

Originally posted by comphosting
I've been wondering the same thing... plus we all know Maria is a major liberal, and she'll end up making all the decisions within 1 month :)... heck I'm considering this a win for liberals every where!

One other thing to think about: This could possibly bode poorly for Bush. Pundits keep discussing how California is a trend-setting state, to them this could mean other states will start a recall. I think they have it wrong -- the recall in California succeeded (at least according to the exit polls) for two reasons: people were fed up with the political infighting in Sacramento and Arnold was perceived as an outsider. So, Arnold won, in part because of his outsider status (he could not have won based on his platform, he didn't have one ;)).

Well, if California reflects the mood of the rest of the country, then in 2004 people are going to want an outsider in the Whitehouse. Based on the support for Arnold, they will probably prefer someone with very little political experience....

General Wesley Clark (http://www.clark04.com/)

He is already leading the other Democrats in several national polls, even though he hasn't really laid out a platform. More importantly, in three national polls he is beating Bush. Why? The only reason I can think of is that he is an outsider.

It would be very Alanis Morissette if Clark did win the election. In California you would have a Democratic Republican and in the White House you would have a Republican Democrat :D.

(Disclaimer: While I am a Democrat, I do not support Clark at this time)

JustinH

10-08-2003, 12:31 PM

Originally posted by allan
He is already leading the other Democrats in several national polls, even though he hasn't really laid out a platform. More importantly, in three national polls he is beating Bush. Why? The only reason I can think of is that he is an outsider.

I've been a Clark supporter since the movement began originally. And to be honest, that WAS the main reason I supported him. I'm a liberal obviously, but I'm sick and tired of "the norm". I'm ready to see someone new in the White House. That being said, he has laid out a lot of his ideas and opinions, just hasn't really substaniated is positions on specific issues.

It would be very Alanis Morissette if Clark did win the election. In California you would have a Democratic Republican and in the White House you would have a Republican Democrat :D.

Hmm... I do agree with the assessment of Arnold. But I think it's almost impossible to give Clark a real "party". I'd like to consider him more interested in facing reality then agreeing with a party.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2089468/

Great article about is abilities and the lack there of.

jablunka

10-08-2003, 12:43 PM

As a Brit i have have a question for you Political Americans here:

Is the position of President the only situation in which one American citizen is treated differently to another citizen due to place of birth.
Surely it will only be a matter of time before the US supreme court rules it to be unconstitutional.

Surely once you are an American citizen you enjoy the same full rights as any other American citizen

Aussie Bob

10-08-2003, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
Next thing you know; they'll elect an actor President.
*falls over* :eek2: :D

Jeremy

10-08-2003, 01:19 PM

i just hope the unit costs dont go up im 23 bones per unit dam its a tad to much for me

blue27

10-08-2003, 02:42 PM

Originally posted by allan
Just one: Why are Replublicans on all the news shows so happy that Californians elected a Democrat ;)? I mean he is pro-choice, pro civil union, and fiscally responsible all qualities normally associated with Democrats :D.

I thought this one would be obvious, especially to Californians. They did not elect a new governor they elected an actor who can sign his name. Arnold will never be responsible for a major decision as long as he is in office. He sold his soul to the right wing faction of the GOP and they will be calling all of the shots.
Arnold will do exactly as he is told and sign whatever bills he is told to sign.

JTY

10-08-2003, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by blue27
I thought this one would be obvious, especially to Californians. They did not elect a new governor they elected an actor who can sign his name. Arnold will never be responsible for a major decision as long as he is in office. He sold his soul to the right wing faction of the GOP and they will be calling all of the shots.
Arnold will do exactly as he is told and sign whatever bills he is told to sign.

Isn't that what most American politicians do?

JustinH

10-08-2003, 03:20 PM

Originally posted by JTY
Isn't that what most American politicians do?

That's what most AMerican's do.

RajanUrs

10-08-2003, 03:27 PM

Originally posted by jablunka
As a Brit i have have a question for you Political Americans here:

Is the position of President the only situation in which one American citizen is treated differently to another citizen due to place of birth.
Surely it will only be a matter of time before the US supreme court rules it to be unconstitutional.

Surely once you are an American citizen you enjoy the same full rights as any other American citizen

I wonder why the descrimination about the President's citizenship .......maybe to prevent the President from taking tax shelter in foreign soil :D

blue27

10-08-2003, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by JTY
Isn't that what most American politicians do?

Some, maybe most. There have been some that have the strength to dictate their own policies, and then there are the ones like Arnold who have no policies.
I've said it before that I would never trust a man who would so vigorously avoid a public debate, (accept for one where the questions were given in advance) and then excuse it by saying he has nothing to gain.
I truly think the electorate did not use their heads on this issue at all.
The recall has hurt the ability of all governors to govern. They will all be looking over their shoulders and their policies will be based on popularity and not what really needs to be done.

I also think this will backfire on the Republicans. They thought they could turn California into a Republican state and turn things in their favor for the next Presidential election. In fact, California has not voted for a Republican, they voted for an actor.
I would be willing to go 6:1 right now that California votes Democratic in the next presidential election.

propcgamer

10-08-2003, 04:04 PM

Well almost anyone is better then the Davis guy

etogre

10-08-2003, 06:27 PM

Arnold's done a lot for California. He's sponsored health-related activities for children and is one of the main coaches for the special olympics. You guys just see him as an actor, but read up, he's had a pretty interesting life. He's a highly lucrative businessman.

At least he'll bring something different to us (californians).

webmultitude

10-08-2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by etogre
Arnold's done a lot for California. He's sponsored health-related activities for children and is one of the main coaches for the special olympics. You guys just see him as an actor, but read up, he's had a pretty interesting life. He's a highly lucrative businessman.

At least he'll bring something different to us (californians).

Hell, anything is better than Davis, so I'm quite happy.

:beer:

FTPguy

10-08-2003, 06:37 PM

The practical reasons given for Davis' downfall include California's gaping budget deficit, once as high as $38 billion, the tripling of the car registration tax, and the electricity crisis that caused rolling blackouts. Some observers say the state's Democratic majority were ready to dump Davis last November but didn't like the alternative - conservative Republican Bill Simon.

The seeds of the recall were planted last year by Davis himself, when he helped Simon beat moderate Republican Richard Riordan in the GOP primary. The move was considered a brilliant political stroke but also deprived voters of any real choice in last year's election - and led eventually to the candidacy of a more powerful Republican moderate, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"I think voters felt shortchanged last year," said Ann Crigler, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California. "They wanted to vote for someone else but just couldn't. This time, they got another moderate Republican and voters made the change."

allan

10-08-2003, 07:02 PM

Originally posted by FTPguy
The practical reasons given for Davis' downfall include California's gaping budget deficit, once as high as $38 billion, the tripling of the car registration tax, and the electricity crisis that caused rolling blackouts. Some observers say the state's Democratic majority were ready to dump Davis last November but didn't like the alternative - conservative Republican Bill Simon.

Keep in mind that the budget shortfall was only $8 Billion dollars this year. $38 Billion was a worst case scenario that never materialized. Secondly, the tripling of the car tax happened automatically -- under California law the car tax automatically increases in cases of emergency. In this case, the emergency was the $8 Billion budget shortfall.

One other note, a big reason for the budget shortfall was that the legislature could not agree on a budget. California law requires that the budget be passed by 2/3rds of the legislature, Democrats and Republicans could not agree on a budget which foced the state to borrow money for almost 2 months, while there was no budget. In the end, the compromise budget is what caused the shortfall.

All of this could have happened under anyone's stewardship, not just Gray Davis. Of course, if Gray Davis had been more of a leader he could convinced the state legislature to compromise in a timely fashion and lessened the severity of the shortfall.

allan

10-08-2003, 07:04 PM

Originally posted by propcgamer
Well almost anyone is better then the Davis guy

I see this comment a lot and it may be true, but I do not see how Arnold is better than Gray Davis? I could see this argument for Tom McClintock, but I can't see it for Arnold. Can you tell me what makes you think Arnold would be a better governor than Gray Davis?

dapon

10-08-2003, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by allan
I see this comment a lot and it may be true, but I do not see how Arnold is better than Gray Davis? I could see this argument for Tom McClintock, but I can't see it for Arnold. Can you tell me what makes you think Arnold would be a better governor than Gray Davis?
Gray Davis is a lifetime plitician. During this recall he proved tiem and time again that he would sell his soul for a vote. The drivers lecense for illegals is one example. He vetoed it twice before but when he needed the hispanic vote he signed a weaker bill.

Arnold doesn't owe anyone in Sacramento anything. He isn't a politician. As has been mentioned, he can't run for president. He isn't doing this for fame or fortune. He has far greater of both than this office can bring him. His reason for doing this would appear to be he wants to help the state.

For these reasons I think Arnold is the better choice between the two and I voted for him.

allan

10-08-2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by dapon

Gray Davis is a lifetime plitician. During this recall he proved tiem and time again that he would sell his soul for a vote. The drivers lecense for illegals is one example. He vetoed it twice before but when he needed the hispanic vote he signed a weaker bill.

Arnold doesn't owe anyone in Sacramento anything. He isn't a politician. As has been mentioned, he can't run for president. He isn't doing this for fame or fortune. He has far greater of both than this office can bring him. His reason for doing this would appear to be he wants to help the state.

For these reasons I think Arnold is the better choice between the two and I voted for him.

But why not vote for McClintock? I can understand why people don't like Gray Davis, and I think there are some valid arguments there, but that does not necessarily explain the attraction to Arnold.

Your arguments for Arnold are:

1. Arnold doesn't owe anyone in Sacramento anything.
2. He isn't a politician
3. He doesn't need the money or power that being governor provides other people.
4. He wants to help the state.

Is that correct?

JustinH

10-08-2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by allan
1. Arnold doesn't owe anyone in Sacramento anything.
2. He isn't a politician
3. He doesn't need the money or power that being governor provides other people.
4. He wants to help the state.

Although I'm quoting Allan, this isn't his stance... he just put it in an easy way to respond.

1. Maybe not... but he owes, and he'll pay. That's politics, and he IS going to owe favors somewhere down the line.

2. And why is it bad to be a politician? No offense, but if we had Actors running the entire country...

3. That's almost funny... Most politicians already have mucho money. They ALL want power, and his power is FAR greater now then as Terminator.

4. Every politician wants to help their state. I doubt Gray Davis wanted to hurt the state.

FTPguy

10-08-2003, 08:57 PM

Originally posted by allan
But why not vote for McClintock?
"Smart people who would prefer steak, would rather eat hamburger than starve. In other words, in this election, smart conservatives will take a guy who will do some of what they want and who can win over a guy who may do all of what they want. but who can't win."

Source (http://www.sierratimes.com/03/10/07/guestoped_hmillard.htm)

Shyne

10-08-2003, 11:15 PM

Arnold is a puppet for a much bigger management. The people who helped him get elected will make sure he steps down even faster if he doesn't follow their rules.

Many people say that Arnold is such a good businessman, but is he really? So he did setup a children's center, but how was he involved? I have a feeling he just wrote out the checks. The election of Arnold and G.W. Bush showed what kind of trash system we've got and there's more to come.

dapon

10-08-2003, 11:57 PM

Originally posted by allan
But why not vote for McClintock? I can understand why people don't like Gray Davis, and I think there are some valid arguments there, but that does not necessarily explain the attraction to Arnold.

Your arguments for Arnold are:

1. Arnold doesn't owe anyone in Sacramento anything.
2. He isn't a politician
3. He doesn't need the money or power that being governor provides other people.
4. He wants to help the state.

Is that correct?
Actually this was a Readers Digest version. Most of the time I make a post I am at work and I am doing so between phone calls and people coming to my desk.

This is a much more complicated issue. This is just how I feel. What does Arnold have to gain by becoming Governor? He has a very successful career without becoming Governor. Gray Davis has raised $120million dollars in the last 7 years from special interest groups. He owes favors for that. Arnold doesn't owe them anything.

Many people say that Arnold is such a good businessman, but is he really? So he did setup a children's center, but how was he involved? I have a feeling he just wrote out the checks.

Think about that Shyne. How could he write a check for that if he wasn't a good businessman? No matter what people say about Arnold they can't deny he is a good businessman. He paid $10million in taxes last year. Have to be successful to do that.

As far as Arnold being a puppet, I don't think so. One of the things people liked about him was his strength and his ability to stand up to people. It's pretty hard to stand up to people when you have taken $120 million from them like Davis. You don't give that kind of money and don't expect anything for it.

1. Maybe not... but he owes, and he'll pay. That's politics, and he IS going to owe favors somewhere down the line.
Comphosting, in answer to your points, who does he owe? Not near as many people as Gray Davis.
2. And why is it bad to be a politician? No offense, but if we had Actors running the entire country...
People seem to think Ronald Reagan did on OK job.
3. That's almost funny... Most politicians already have mucho money. They ALL want power, and his power is FAR greater now then as Terminator.
It's laughable that you think that a politician makes the kind of money that Arnold makes. Arnold id not doing this for the money.
4. Every politician wants to help their state. I doubt Gray Davis wanted to hurt the state.
Gray Davis didn't really care about the state. This was very obvious by his actions in the last 2 months. He only cared about saving his job. He has never had a real job. He couldn't last 6 months in the private sector. He wouldn't have taken all of the special interest money if he cared about the state.

Only time will tell if Arnold can do a good job. Remember, they said the same thing about Jesse Ventura in Minn. Seems things went OK with him in office. Maybe it's time to give business people a chance to run the state like a business
.

Shyne

10-09-2003, 12:10 AM

dapon,

Well, the fact that he paid so much in taxes shows he's a bad businessman. He gets paid a lot not because he's a businessman. Are you forgetting his profession? Can you please show me some examples where he stands up for people? I don't know much about his political past so maybe you can shine some light on this.

Like someone already mentioned. Politicans are filthy rich, but they still accept "charities." Most politicians are invonvled with some corporation in one way or another.

If he wasn't a puppet, then I would expect him to be more outspoken and direct about his topic. I never heard him say anything specific. Unless knowledge will just magically appear in his had, then I do believe he'll be a puppet.

JustinH

10-09-2003, 12:28 AM

Comphosting, in answer to your points, who does he owe? Not near as many people as Gray Davis.

Every single company and/or person that contributed to his campaign. I'm not sure how many people Arnold or Gray owe, so I can't quality or disqualify the last statement.

People seem to think Ronald Reagan did on OK job.

"If there is a way to delay in important decision, the good bureaucracy, public or private." - Parkinson's Fifth Law
:D

It's laughable that you think that a politician makes the kind of money that Arnold makes. Arnold id not doing this for the money.

I didn't say that they make as much as Arnold... I said they already have a lot of money. Which... they do.

Gray Davis didn't really care about the state. This was very obvious by his actions in the last 2 months. He only cared about saving his job. He has never had a real job. He couldn't last 6 months in the private sector. He wouldn't have taken all of the special interest money if he cared about the state.

I guess we all have opinions... I'm not really sure how you can know any of the above. He made decisions that he hade to make, and every Joe Blow with a remote can do 10x the job :).

rooshine

10-09-2003, 12:50 AM

Originally posted by jablunka
As a Brit i have have a question for you Political Americans here:

Is the position of President the only situation in which one American citizen is treated differently to another citizen due to place of birth.
Surely it will only be a matter of time before the US supreme court rules it to be unconstitutional.

Surely once you are an American citizen you enjoy the same full rights as any other American citizen Yes, the president's office is the only one where this is so. As for the the Supreme Court ruling this unconstitutional, this is highly unlikely since it is in the constitution ;)

webworkz

10-09-2003, 12:53 AM

Originally posted by dapon

Only time will tell if Arnold can do a good job. Remember, they said the same thing about Jesse Ventura in Minn. Seems things went OK with him in office.

Jesse Ventura was a former NAVY SEAL, a veteran of the Vietnam war, and an Independent.

The only reason people questioned him was because he was in show business [movies/wrestling].

Sorry, but I would take a former NAVY SEAL with no party ties any day.

Jesse Ventura, as governor, did a damn good job because he didn't take crap off of other people, thought for himself, and ran Minnesota based on his own principals.

:usflag: to him.

Joe Bonanno

10-09-2003, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Shyne
Arnold is a puppet for a much bigger management. The people who helped him get elected will make sure he steps down even faster if he doesn't follow their rules.

Many people say that Arnold is such a good businessman, but is he really? So he did setup a children's center, but how was he involved? I have a feeling he just wrote out the checks. The election of Arnold and G.W. Bush showed what kind of trash system we've got and there's more to come.

There is no evidence at all that Arnold is a puppet controlled by anyone. He is too much in the center to be the puppet of any imagined right winged conspiracy.

Pandering and pork barrelling are things that both Democrats and Republican do, but Davis took it to such an extreme level that 30 percent of Democrats in this state voted to oust him.

Furthermore the "trash" in the system is the California legislature and the complete lack of common sense that it has displayed for years in its governance.

Shyne

10-09-2003, 02:37 AM

Originally posted by Joe Bonanno
There is no evidence at all that Arnold is a puppet controlled by anyone. He is too much in the center to be the puppet of any imagined right winged conspiracy.

That's why he's a good puppet.

Eric Cartman

10-09-2003, 04:19 AM

source (http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=283)

Arnold Unplugged - It's hasta la vista to $9 billion if the Governator is selected
Friday, October 3, 2003
It's not what Arnold Schwarzenegger did to the girls a decade back that should raise an eyebrow. According to a series of memoranda our office obtained today, it's his dalliance with the boys in a hotel room just two years ago that's the real scandal.

The wannabe governor has yet to deny that on May 17, 2001, at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, he had consensual political intercourse with Enron chieftain Kenneth Lay. Also frolicking with Arnold and Ken was convicted stock swindler Mike Milken.

Now, thirty-four pages of internal Enron memoranda have just come through this reporter's fax machine tell all about the tryst between Maria's husband and the corporate con men. It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off.

Here's the story Arnold doesn't want you to hear. The biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords is a private lawsuit filed last year under California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the "Unfair Business Practices Act." This litigation, heading to trial now in Los Angeles, would make the power companies return the $9 billion they filched from California electricity and gas customers.

It takes real cojones to bring such a suit. Who's the plaintiff taking on the bad guys? Cruz Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor and reluctant leading candidate against Schwarzenegger.

Now follow the action. One month after Cruz brings suit, Enron's Lay calls an emergency secret meeting in L.A. of his political buck-buddies, including Arnold. Their plan, to undercut Davis (according to Enron memos) and "solve" the energy crisis -- that is, make the Bustamante legal threat go away.

How can that be done? Follow the trail with me.

While Bustamante's kicking Enron butt in court, the Davis Administration is simultaneously demanding that George Bush's energy regulators order the $9 billion refund. Don't hold your breath: Bush's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is headed by a guy proposed by … Ken Lay.

But Bush's boys on the commission have a problem. The evidence against the electricity barons is rock solid: fraudulent reporting of sales transactions, megawatt "laundering," fake power delivery scheduling and straight out conspiracy (including meetings in hotel rooms).

So the Bush commissioners cook up a terrific scheme: charge the companies with conspiracy but offer them, behind closed doors, deals in which they have to pay only two cents on each dollar they filched.

Problem: the slap-on-the-wrist refunds won't sail if the Governor of California won't play along. Solution: Re-call the Governor.

New Problem: the guy most likely to replace Davis is not Mr. Musclehead, but Cruz Bustamante, even a bigger threat to the power companies than Davis. Solution: smear Cruz because -- heaven forbid! -- he took donations from Injuns (instead of Ken Lay).

The pay-off? Once Arnold is Governor, he blesses the sweetheart settlements with the power companies. When that happens, Bustamante's court cases are probably lost. There aren't many judges who will let a case go to trial to protect a state if that a governor has already allowed the matter to be "settled" by a regulatory agency.

So think about this. The state of California is in the hole by $8 billion for the coming year. That's chump change next to the $8 TRILLION in deficits and surplus losses planned and incurred by George Bush. Nevertheless, the $8 billion deficit is the hanging rope California's right wing is using to lynch Governor Davis.

Yet only Davis and Bustamante are taking direct action to get back the $9 billion that was vacuumed out of the state by Enron, Reliant, Dynegy, Williams Company and the other Texas bandits who squeezed the state by the bulbs.

But if Arnold is selected, it's 'hasta la vista' to the $9 billion. When the electricity emperors whistle, Arnold comes -- to the Peninsula Hotel or the Governor's mansion. The he-man turns pussycat and curls up in their lap.

I asked Mr. Muscle's PR people to comment on the new Enron memos -- and his strange silence on Bustamante's suit or Davis' petition. But Arnold was too busy shaving off his Hitlerian mustache to respond.

The Enron memos were discovered by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Los Angeles,
www.ConsumerWatchdog.org

Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" as well as "Regulation and Democracy" (with Theo MacGregor and Jerrold Oppenheim), the United Nations guide to utility deregulation. Read Palast's commentaries at www.GregPalast.com. Reprints permitted. Contact: media@gregpalast.com. The Enron memos were discovered by the Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, Los Angeles, www.ConsumerWatchdog.org.

allan

10-09-2003, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by Eric Cartman
source (http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=283)

I've seen this story mentioned in a couple of different places, and something about it does not seem right to me. Take a look at this way: What benefit does Arnold get out of playing along? If this were a normal election, then there might be some benefit because he would need a great deal of money and powerful backers to make it through the primary (Republican primary voters tend to be more right wing than the general electorate -- just like primary Democratic voters tend to be more left wing than the general electorate). The energy companies could provide this.

But in this election, there is no benefit. Arnold already had the help of Jay, Howard, and Oprah, not to mention every right wing nutjob with a talkshow -- and that was all he needed.

The energy corporatation simply did not have anything Arnold needed. Of course, I guess we will know within 6 months whether or not the story is true, because we can watch for a settlement in the case.

allan

10-09-2003, 07:14 AM

Originally posted by Joe Bonanno

Furthermore the "trash" in the system is the California legislature and the complete lack of common sense that it has displayed for years in its governance.

Perhaps, or perhaps it is the voters that continually vote for the trash -- and make rules and regulations that make it impossible for the legislature to govern ineffectively :D.

Eric Cartman

10-09-2003, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by allan
Take a look at this way: What benefit does Arnold get out of playing along?
running for the republicans

enron, bush, cheney says enough i guess

RajanUrs

10-09-2003, 07:26 AM

arnold cannot be a puppet or a dictator as a choice.....he has to do his job to keep the people of california happy.....how he does it is highly debatable :-)

allan

10-09-2003, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Eric Cartman
running for the republicans

enron, bush, cheney says enough i guess

That's my point, in a normal election I would agree with you, but in a recall election, any Republican is able to run (so is any Democratic, Green Party, or Independent Candidate) without having to go through the party (hence the circus). So the energy companies really could not offer Arnold anything, except money, and I am sure there would have been stories if they had made large contributions to Arnold's campaign.

Eric Cartman

10-09-2003, 07:45 AM

well he was the "main republican" candidate, they really didn't have anyone else so he must have had full support of the party otherwise they would have had a real compettior for him or would have made him weak in the media

allan

10-09-2003, 07:49 AM

Of course, you can always look through the California Secretary of State webpage and see who contrbuted to Arnold during this campaign (3250 people did):

http://cal-access.ss.ca.gov/Campaign/Committees/Detail.aspx?id=1256981&session=2003&view=received

On first glance, I don't see a lot of energy companies. I do see a lot of real estate development firms (and 1 ex-president)...but maybe other people will find something interesting.

dapon

10-09-2003, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Shyne
That's why he's a good puppet.
I honestly don't understand this puupet angle you're going after. Why does a guy who makes $40 million/year and is worht over $200 million want to be a puppet for anyone? I jsut don't see a motive for Arnold to bend over to any special interest group.

Let's see, I'm worth $200 mil/ make $30 to $40mil a movie, am undoubtably the star of the show and call all the shots, and you want me to put that on hold so I can make a lot less money and kiss peoples ass, sure I'll do it. Doesn't make sense to me though. I would have to say no to that offer.

And Eric, if what you say about Cruz is true then I think it's a good thing. But he has to do something for his pay check.

As I have said before, only time will tell if Arnold will do a good job. But I, along with a majority of other Californians feel it was worth the risk of voting Davis out and choosing Arnold over Bustamonte and McClintock.

And Allen, I voted for Arnod over McClintock because I am a democrat not a republican and I feel Arnold more closely matches my ideals.

allan

10-09-2003, 12:46 PM

Okay, I don't want to pick on Arnold too much, but I had to comment on this article in the NY Times today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/national/09CALI.html?hp

It turns out part of his super secret plan for saving California is... Ask President Bush for more money!! Now, why the heck didn't anyone else think of that....I mean after all, if you are stuck, the best thing to do is get more money from the federal government. So what that the rest of us, who do not live in California have to foot the bill.

But, the best part:

...he would call on President Bush to provide federal aid to California, now in Republican hands.

So, California should only get the money because a Republican is in charge?

Okay, I will quit picking on him now, sorry.

MDJ2000

10-09-2003, 01:08 PM

LOL, Arnold possibly "met with Ken Lay", that makes him responsible for bilking $9 billion from California, and check the source too, a little slant there maybe?

Give me a break, check this reputable source for an interesting tidbit on Enron and who started all that http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,338580,00.html

I get a real kick out of it when people post editorials as a "source" or as something other than what it is, simply an opinion, if he was trying to pass that as journalism, he would be fired.

allan

10-09-2003, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by MDJ2000

Give me a break, check this reputable source for an interesting tidbit on Enron and who started all that http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,338580,00.html

Since we are using reputable sources, here is an interesting one from Voice of America (http://www.help-for-you.com/news/Jan2002/Jan12/PRT12-49Article.html):

Since 1989, Enron's political contributions are believed to be nearly $6 million.

Almost three quarters of the money (73 percent) went to Republicans, the remaining number (27 percent) to Democrats.

So sure, Enron contributed to Clinton, and bought influence, just as they would have with whoever is in power, but it is very clear that Replublicans were much more sympathetic to their position and therefore were better rewarded.

MDJ2000

10-09-2003, 03:15 PM

I think you missed my point Allan. This wasn't really an attempt to OT the topic onto Enron.

Your point is moot anyways, the first 2 sentences are the article I posted read:
Before its messy decline and fall, Enron had plenty of clout in George W. Bush's Washington, from the personal ties between chairman Ken Lay and the President to the company's alleged influence on Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force.

allan

10-09-2003, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by MDJ2000
I think you missed my point Allan. This wasn't really an attempt to OT the topic onto Enron.

My apologies if I got your intention wrong, I just assumed that since you said:

Give me a break, check this reputable source for an interesting tidbit on Enron and who started all that

you were trying to highlight that Clinton's Whitehouse was heavily involved in Enron and I wanted to point out that even durinig that period Enron still gave more money to Republicans than Democrats.

But anyway, you are right, we are drifting off the topic at hand.
[slaps wrist, bad moderator]

MDJ2000

10-09-2003, 03:31 PM

"S'all good"... as they say

Alan - Vox

10-09-2003, 03:42 PM

Many people say that Arnold is such a good businessman, but is he really? So he did setup a children's center, but how was he involved? I have a feeling he just wrote out the checks. The election of Arnold and G.W. Bush showed what kind of trash system we've got and there's more to come.

Arnie was already a millionair from property before he started acting. Thats why hes a good business man :)

Shyne

10-09-2003, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by dapon
I honestly don't understand this puupet angle you're going after. Why does a guy who makes $40 million/year and is worht over $200 million want to be a puppet for anyone? I jsut don't see a motive for Arnold to bend over to any special interest group.

Let's see, I'm worth $200 mil/ make $30 to $40mil a movie, am undoubtably the star of the show and call all the shots, and you want me to put that on hold so I can make a lot less money and kiss peoples ass, sure I'll do it. Doesn't make sense to me though. I would have to say no to that offer.

And Eric, if what you say about Cruz is true then I think it's a good thing. But he has to do something for his pay check.

As I have said before, only time will tell if Arnold will do a good job. But I, along with a majority of other Californians feel it was worth the risk of voting Davis out and choosing Arnold over Bustamonte and McClintock.

And Allen, I voted for Arnod over McClintock because I am a democrat not a republican and I feel Arnold more closely matches my ideals.

I don't understand it either. Why would men with so much wealth and power already want to gain even more power and money? Why do previous dictators, rich and powerful enough, want to gain more power and wealth? Why are CEOs of corporation so greedy and care only about more money and power? Whyyyyyyyy!!!? :)

blue27

10-09-2003, 05:10 PM

If it was already said in this thread I missed it, but could someone please help to educated a Northerner in the way of US election issues.
Why does Bustamante remain as Lt. Governor instead of Arnold appointing his own?

rooshine

10-09-2003, 05:29 PM

Originally posted by blue27
If it was already said in this thread I missed it, but could someone please help to educated a Northerner in the way of US election issues.
Why does Bustamante remain as Lt. Governor instead of Arnold appointing his own? In New York State we vote for the lieutenant governor in a separate election. I think California works the same way. I'm not sure if this is up to the states to decide or if all states must be this way.

blue27

10-09-2003, 05:34 PM

Thanks rooshine. In New York do the elections of Governor and Lt. Governor usually coincide?

secludo

10-09-2003, 05:40 PM

Yes, we vote for the lieutenant governor separately here as well, so unless Bustamante is recalled too (is that possible?), he will remain in his position.

I wonder, what would have happened if Bustamante won this election? Who would have been lieutenant governor at that point?

dapon

10-09-2003, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by Shyne
I don't understand it either. Why would men with so much wealth and power already want to gain even more power and money? Why do previous dictators, rich and powerful enough, want to gain more power and wealth? Why are CEOs of corporation so greedy and care only about more money and power? Whyyyyyyyy!!!? :)
Because it is so much easier to pick up great looking women?:eek:

interactive

10-09-2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by SoftWareRevue
Next thing you know; they'll elect an actor President.

It's been done. Ronald Reagan. Arnold can't be President (or can't at the time being) because he wasn't born in the United States.

FTPguy

10-09-2003, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by Shyne
The election of Arnold and G.W. Bush showed what kind of trash system we've got and there's more to come.
:rolleyes:

Shyne

10-09-2003, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by FTPguy
:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Your post was too informative. Please try to keep it shorter.

blue27

10-09-2003, 07:43 PM

Originally posted by Shyne
:rolleyes:

Your post was too informative. Please try to keep it shorter.

He was probably using the roll eyes symbol because he couldn't figure out what you were talking about.

Originally posted by Shyne
The election of Arnold and G.W. Bush showed what kind of trash system we've got and there's more to come.

You say it's a trash system, do you know of a better one?

allan

10-09-2003, 07:50 PM

Originally posted by blue27

You say it's a trash system, do you know of a better one?

Dictatorship, as long as I am running things :D.

allan

10-09-2003, 07:52 PM

Originally posted by interactive
It's been done. Ronald Reagan. Arnold can't be President (or can't at the time being) because he wasn't born in the United States.

Robert, I think SWR was being sarcastic ;). You have to remember that he is the one member of the board who can refer to Reagan as "sonny" :D :D.

blue27

10-09-2003, 07:52 PM

That won't work Allan.

At least not unless I am your second in command and have a very high salary.

Shyne

10-09-2003, 07:52 PM

I wasn't referring to the technical aspect of the system its self. I ment the way people manipulate it.

You say it's a trash system, do you know of a better one?

Yes, of course. I am sure you can come up with better simple versions. But, it would require a different kind of people. I don't think we can acheive something of this sort in today's society. Too early.

allan

10-09-2003, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by blue27
That won't work Allan.

At least not unless I am your second in command and have a very high salary.

No problem on your first demand, and for your second, well duhhh, that's what plundering is for :D.

blue27

10-09-2003, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by allan
No problem on your first demand, and for your second, well duhhh, that's what plundering is for :D.

Your right, all we would have to do is divert some of the funds earmarked for highways into our personal accounts and you can change our address to Easy Street.

FTPguy

10-09-2003, 10:10 PM

Off topic once again.

TurboBunny

10-09-2003, 11:35 PM

I was in Sac earlier today and I seen one of those ground signs that read "JOIN ARNOLD" So I TOOK IT!...

I gave it to my friend arnold who got a big kick out of it...

John[H4Y]

10-10-2003, 03:04 AM

I haven't wasted my time reading the rest of this thread, but I've got to add that I CAN'T BELIEVE THE TERMINATOR IS NOW THE GOVERNOR OF THE LARGEST STATE IN OUR COUNTRY!!! (or is TX the largest?) Jessie Ventura, now Arnold. He wouldn't even debate unless he knew the questions before-hand. He's a great actor, but he shouldn't get to be govenor of CA. Stupid voters.. stupid stupid stupid. Oh well, at least he is only pretending to be govener. I'm sure there are still people who know what they are doing "advising" him as there are with Bush or both would fail horridly.

This is only my opinion.. don't hate me. I just don't like having actors lead big ass states. Makes me think the US is turning into a joke in the world's eyes (wait, Bush already did that).

Ronald McDonald in 2004!!

dapon

10-10-2003, 11:23 AM

Originally posted by John[H4Y]
I haven't wasted my time reading the rest of this thread, but I've got to add that I CAN'T BELIEVE THE TERMINATOR IS NOW THE GOVERNOR OF THE LARGEST STATE IN OUR COUNTRY!!! (or is TX the largest?) Jessie Ventura, now Arnold. He wouldn't even debate unless he knew the questions before-hand. He's a great actor, but he shouldn't get to be govenor of CA. Stupid voters.. stupid stupid stupid. Oh well, at least he is only pretending to be govener. I'm sure there are still people who know what they are doing "advising" him as there are with Bush or both would fail horridly.

This is only my opinion.. don't hate me. I just don't like having actors lead big ass states. Makes me think the US is turning into a joke in the world's eyes (wait, Bush already did that).

Ronald McDonald in 2004!!
As a 45 year resident of CA I would take Arnold over what we had any time. Everyone is saying Arnold the actor but they forget he was a business man long before he was a actor. He made millions as a businessman.

Out of the 135 canidates who do you think would do a better job than the "actor"?
Maybe it's time we ran this state as a bussiness instead of a charity.

MDJ2000

10-10-2003, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by dapon
Maybe it's time we ran this state as a bussiness[sic] instead of a charity. That's a great quote. I think that sums up a lot of the sentiment of the average voter, not just in California.

allan

10-10-2003, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by dapon

Out of the 135 canidates who do you think would do a better job than the "actor"?
Maybe it's time we ran this state as a bussiness instead of a charity.

Tom McClintock
Cruz Bustamonte
Georgy Russell (my favorite)

The government as a business analogy has never really made sense to me. For one, the goals of the two are (or should be) very different: The goal of any business is to maximize profit and, to a lesser extent, provide value to shareholders. The goal of a government is to provide necessary services and safeguard its citizens.

Businesses focus inward on its profitability. Government focuses outward on its citizens.

To run a government like a business would mean raising taxes as much as possible to maximize revenue and reward those who supported the candidate, ie the stockholders. According to many, this is what was already being done in California ;).

I'll show you the difference in approaches, and why I am not a fan of Arnold as Governor. This is from his acceptance speech:

I want to also thank the people of California. From the time I came over to this country, you've opened up your arms to me. You've received me. You've given me opportunities, endless amount of opportunities. Everything that I have is because of California. I came over -- that's right. I came here with absolutely nothing. And California has given me absolutely everything. And today, and today, California has given me the greatest gift of all. You've given me your trust by voting for me. Thank you very much to all the people of California for giving me their great trust.

And let me tell you something. I will do everything I can to live up to that trust. I will not fail you. I will not disappoint you. And I will not let you down. For two months, I've been speaking out about the needs of bringing back fiscal responsibility to this state, bringing back the positive business atmosphere, bringing back businesses, bringing back jobs and bringing back our education. It's very important that we need to bring back the trust in the government itself.

Now compare that to the concession speech given by Tom McClintock:

I have just spoken to Governor-elect Schwarzenegger and pledged to him my wholehearted support in undertaking the great responsibilities with which the people have entrusted him.

This is a great day for California. History will record that on this day, in response to a common danger, the people of California rose to their duty as citizens and ordered a new direction for their state.

A great discussion has taken place during the last 75 days over the future of California. It is a discussion that involved every citizen. And it has been the greatest honor and greatest privilege of my life to have had a role in that discussion.

The agenda that I announced at the outset of this campaign has been adopted not only by other candidates but by the vast majority of Californians.

And this excerpt from a speech by Governor Dean:

But I soon came to realize something larger was on the minds of Americans. Meeting and talking to thousands of people in living rooms, union halls and diners across this country, I've heard anger and dismay about the direction our leaders have taken. And a yearning for a crusade to take back our country and our party.

So this campaign has become a powerful movement to take our country back. With over two hundred thousand Americans already signed up, we're building the greatest grassroots campaign of the modern era on mouse pads, shoe leather and hope.

This campaign is about more than one political office. It is about putting the power of the people to work for change. It is about giving people a reason to get involved, to care about their community, to get active, and out there, and vote!

Count the number of times Arnold uses the words "I", "me", "I've", or "my" in that snippet. Then count the number of times that McClintock and Dean do.

My count:

Arnold: 18
McClintock: 4
Dean: 2

For both McClintock and Dean their speeches are about the people -- the focus is outward, for Arnold his speech is about him. Of course, this is just my opinion -- and my style of politics is obviously different than others, but I do think it makes for a stark contrast.

allan

10-10-2003, 12:00 PM

And just to be a little mean to poor Arnold, from this article in the San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/10/09/state1711EDT0129.DTL):

He also called on Gov. Gray Davis not to make any more appointments or sign legislation in the waning days of his administration, although Schwarzenegger acknowledged it is Davis' right to do so.

"I would like it really if he doesn't sign anymore bills, as far as that goes," Schwarzenegger said. "But we will be working on that, and I'm absolutely convinced that when the governor says that he wants to have a smooth transition, that we will in fact have a smooth transition. And I am looking forward to that and the process has already begun."

In Sacramento, Davis press secretary Steven Maviglio responded that Davis will continue to make appointments and act on legislation. He added, "The governor-elect might be interested in learning that bills that Gov. Davis does not act on before October 13th automatically become law."

In California, the governor may veto a bill, sign it or allow it to become law without signing it. In some other states a bill dies if it is not signed by the governor.

dapon

10-10-2003, 12:12 PM

Count the number of times Arnold uses the words "I", "me", "I've", or "my" in that snippet. Then count the number of times that McClintock and Dean do.
So what this tells me Allan is that by thinking in terms of me, you are a winner and by thinking of others you are a loser. Just kidding.:)

Actually I take Arnolds speach to be a thank you for what this state and this country has made possible for him. He wouldn't be where he is without the oppurtunity here. And he isn't a polished polician like the others. They are all very good at saying what we want to hear and then doing what is best for their careers once in office.

California is the 5th largest economy in the world. To me that is a prety good size business. There are too many deals being made not to be a business, at least in some aspects. I agree with what you say in part. But if you spend what you have and not more you don't have to raise taxes.

Can you go out and buy a million dollar home and a Rolls Royce and go in and tell your boss you need more money? The state tries it all of the time. They over spend and expect us to pay more money. Politicians wouldn't last 6 months in a real job. No company would put up with their overspending. In simplified terms the citizens should be the share holders and the Governor should be like a CEO. That's what we just did here. We got rid of a horrible CEO.

It gets complicated and would take more time than I have to go into all of my opinions here, but I think Arnold will do a better job than Davis was doing. The majoruty of people here feel the same way I do and voted Arnold in. I think time will tell who is right and who is wrong.

And who in the heck is Georgy Russell?:D